The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Um, yes he does. He said earlier in the thread, or admitted to it when someone else brought it up, that he screws around with dogs in vehicles, for ####s and giggles, to get them riled up.

Leaving a dog in a vehicle is a whole other subject that grinds my gears (for extended lengths of time, when it's crazy hot or cold outside) but FFS, there is no need to harass and rile up a dog locked up in a vehicle through no fault of his own.

Haha i had no idea he meant that for real, i thought it was a joke post. Yikes i dont know what to say, hard to believe anyone can believe its ok to do that.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Just go with a blanket muzzle requirement.. Or do people think it will make their dog look uncool?

No, it's just a stupid idea. Besides the fact some dogs are more aggressive with muzzles on... yes they can do less damage, but will react more aggressively to rather tame situations. I used to volunteer at the humane society and consequently got into animal behaviorism and I've seen this in person. In fact the humane society used to muzzle aggressive dogs as a last resort.

I can respect a person who muzzle their dog if that dog is prone to aggression but a blanket "muzzle all dogs over x pounds" is ridiculous.

Gahhhh I have to stop reading this thread, the ignorance that's displayed by some people in here is unbelievable.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

I'm becoming concerned about otters actually. ;(

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

Haha i had no idea he meant that for real, i thought it was a joke post. Yikes i dont know what to say, hard to believe anyone can believe its ok to do that.

Dude of course that's not okay. Minnie has no idea what he's talking about. Like two times in the past decade I've whistled at a car with a dog in it. But not while a dog is locked in a hot car in a parking lot as he made it sound. It's when I'm driving in my car and there's a dog in another car that's driving beside me. I might whistle to get the dog barking or acting weird so the other driver/dog owner is all wtf. It's just being immature/goofy and harms nothing. It's mildly entertaining and as I said something I've done probably twice in my life. I don't even know if the dog can hear me or if it would even care as I'm not an expert on canine auditory capabilities nor how sound travels through two layers of glass and across five lanes of traffic.

[Jbo]

"Whenever I see somebody driving along with their dog in their car I'll whistle to get the dog's attention and try to get them to bust out the little crack in the window the owner has usually left. Sometimes they freak out ; sometimes they don't .

I wouldn't do it if the window was wide open as I obviously wouldn't want the dog to actually escape. I just like when they scratch at the window and get all inexplicably obnoxious so the owners is all WTF."

Seems more then twice, dude.

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dude of course that's not okay. Minnie has no idea what he's talking about. Like two times in the past decade I've whistled at a car with a dog in it. But not while a dog is locked in a hot car in a parking lot as he made it sound. It's when I'm driving in my car and there's a dog in another car that's driving beside me. I might whistle to get the dog barking or acting weird so the other driver/dog owner is all wtf. It's just being immature/goofy and harms nothing. It's mildly entertaining and as I said something I've done probably twice in my life. I don't even know if the dog can hear me or if it would even care as I'm not an expert on canine auditory capabilities nor how sound travels through two layers of glass and across five lanes of traffic.

I was actually commenting on V trying to justify that the behavior was acceptable, i took it as a joke post, i guess it wasn't or maybe it was, i dont know, but the behavior is wrong regardless.

If what you are saying is true then fine, dont know why you would bother, but whatever. I will add this though, with some of the things your saying why would anyone give you the benefit of doubt? For every good point you make you counter it with some outlandish statement.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Just an observation, and not an attack on dogs or dog owners, but this issue seems to have a lot in common with gun control with regards banning of certain breeds vs the right of owners to own the dog of their choice. There is a public safety issue as well as the argument that a few irresponsible dog owners are ruining it for the responsible owners. Just an observation, carry on

It seems like the most moderate and sensible call to action after the Connecticut shootings was not to ban all guns, but rather to acknowledge that there is a problem with gun violence in the U.S., in particular with the access people have to assault weapons. These are weapons designed not only to kill, but to kill at a higher rate than more conventional firearms. Therefore, access to them should be restricted much more greatly, if not banned outright.

The same principle applies to pit bulls and other vicious breeds of dog. I don't really give a damn if people enjoy that particular breed of dog over others, just like I don't really give a damn if someone would prefer to own an AR-33 over a shotgun. The objective risk of public harm (backed up by data related to the breeds of dogs which are demonstrably more prone to violent attacks than others) outweigh the subjective enjoyment that one person may get from owning a dangerous animal.

My family always had guns in the house. My family always had dogs in the house. But we had shotguns or deer rifles, not assault rifles, and golden retrievers, not pitbulls.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by VO #23

It seems like the most moderate and sensible call to action after the Connecticut shootings was not to ban all guns, but rather to acknowledge that there is a problem with gun violence in the U.S., in particular with the access people have to assault weapons. These are weapons designed not only to kill, but to kill at a higher rate than more conventional firearms. Therefore, access to them should be restricted much more greatly, if not banned outright.

The same principle applies to pit bulls and other vicious breeds of dog. I don't really give a damn if people enjoy that particular breed of dog over others, just like I don't really give a damn if someone would prefer to own an AR-33 over a shotgun. The objective risk of public harm (backed up by data related to the breeds of dogs which are demonstrably more prone to violent attacks than others) outweigh the subjective enjoyment that one person may get from owning a dangerous animal.

My family always had guns in the house. My family always had dogs in the house. But we had shotguns or deer rifles, not assault rifles, and golden retrievers, not pitbulls.

Except the comparison of assault rifles to any dog breed is ridiculous.

You are comparing a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in seconds, vs a dog breed. It's a little over the top.

The only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill quickly. Pitbulls for the most part are great dogs it's a really silly comparison.

[Flames_Gimp]

most dog related incidents in Calgary aren't pitbulls.

[hmmhmmcamo]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Pitbulls for the most part are great dogs...

Until they're not, and then people get seriously messed up or die.

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

most dog related incidents in Calgary aren't pitbulls.

What's the definition of dog related incidents? It sounds like a pretty broad definition that probably includes every little thing, so of course pit bull specific incidents wouldn't be a big percentage. who cares?...other than pit bull attack victims.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Except the comparison of assault rifles to any dog breed is ridiculous.

You are comparing a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in seconds, vs a dog breed. It's a little over the top.

The only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill quickly. Pitbulls for the most part are great dogs it's a really silly comparison.

The point is that large-scale access to assault weapons creates an objective public risk not worth the subjective individual pleasure of allowing ownership. The same principle applies to dangerous breeds of dog that when things go wrong, they go horribly wrong.

[KTrain]

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Is there any evidence that it is a slippery slope. In communities where bans have been put in place have those bans then be extended to include other breeds?

It looks like some bans are going the other as in they are getting lifted. Edmonton's ban wasn't effective and Ontario is looking at getting rid of their ban as well.

Last October, Edmonton scrapped 25-year-old restrictions on the animals after a report found the tough rules were ineffective at reducing biting.

And while it is still illegal to own a pit bull in Ontario, a majority of politicians in the legislature supported a private member’s bill in 2012 urging the Liberals to quash the breed-specific ban.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Ci...#ixzz2H7WSj12Y

[pepper24]

"My kids are around pit bulls every day. In the '70s they blamed Dobermans, in the '80s they blamed German shepherds, in the '90s they blamed the Rottweiler. Now they blame the pit bull."

- Cesar Millan

Very true. I remember the bad rap on German Shepards as a kid and Rottweilers in my teens. Now you don't hear much about them. Pit bulls are the new breed to hate and we'll see what becomes the next.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by fotze

Why isn't anyone ralking about cats?

Probably because while dogs are ripping humanity apart, cats are too busy wishing you a meowy christmas and posing for lolcat photos.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by VO #23

The point is that large-scale access to assault weapons creates an objective public risk not worth the subjective individual pleasure of allowing ownership. The same principle applies to dangerous breeds of dog that when things go wrong, they go horribly wrong.

You are right. Pitbulls are responsible for hundreds of murders every year. Once a pitbull attacks it can't be stopped from killing dozens of people. Luckily swat teams are equipped with proper pitbull training.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

You are right. Pitbulls are responsible for hundreds of murders every year. Once a pitbull attacks it can't be stopped from killing dozens of people. Luckily swat teams are equipped with proper pitbull training.

You are either intentionally missing the point, or just plain missing the point. Either way, you are missing the point.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Probably because while dogs are ripping humanity apart, cats are too busy wishing you a meowy christmas and posing for lolcat photos.

Or they are infecting your brain with toxoplasmosis. In turn causing you to make poor decisions leading to death.

Off topic, there are studies coming out showing a large percentage of those who died in motorcycle crashes had been infected with toxoplasmosis. They are starting to believe it affects you decision making causing you to make poorer, riskier decisions.

It will be interesting as more research comes out.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You are either intentionally missing the point, or just plain missing the point. Either way, you are missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, I just think it's a bad comparison. A weapon of death vs a dog. I understand what they are trying to say, I just think the comparison is over the top, which is why I posted an exaggerated reply.

I've acknowledged that they can be a problem, and those bad owners will move on to other breeds and you will have the same problems. Regulation is the answer.

Sports cars and suvs are a better comparison, they kill way more innocent people per year.

I accept the risk of driving, but I drive a small underpowered vehicle because I know if I hit something it will do less damage.

All those meathead, jacked up truck driving idiots are bad drivers, putting me in danger every time they get on the road. BAN THEM

Note : the above is clearly sarcasm.

[V]

You're right, it's a silly comparison, about as silly as all the people that try to make their point by humanizing dogs. I guess it's easier to make these silly comparisons than actually talk about the real issues.